Growing Hostility towards Evangelical Christians on Atlas

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

It's is a bit of an easier target than some religious traditions since the boundaries of what is or isn't "Evangelical" isn't always clearly defined, so people can engage in some motte-and-bailey arguments based on their own stereotypes of what the term includes.    But people here also feel pretty free to attack Hasidim, or Catholics who follow the church's teachings on matters of family and sexual morality.    And it's nothing new.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Xing's post is good.

Religion should not be immune from criticism, and obviously if you express religious-based beliefs that homosexuality is bad, expect as sharp a rebuke on an LGBT-heavy forum as you would if your homophobia was secular-based.  This applies to any religion.  Disliking a religion is not the same thing as say, racism.

Why is criticizing religion good, but criticizing any aspect of homosexuality automatically a "phobia" ?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Xing's post is good.

Religion should not be immune from criticism, and obviously if you express religious-based beliefs that homosexuality is bad, expect as sharp a rebuke on an LGBT-heavy forum as you would if your homophobia was secular-based.  This applies to any religion.  Disliking a religion is not the same thing as say, racism.

Why is criticizing religion good, but criticizing any aspect of homosexuality automatically a "phobia" ?

Because you can ultimately choose your religion but not your sexuality

Is it okay to criticize or question this belief?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Xing's post is good.

Religion should not be immune from criticism, and obviously if you express religious-based beliefs that homosexuality is bad, expect as sharp a rebuke on an LGBT-heavy forum as you would if your homophobia was secular-based.  This applies to any religion.  Disliking a religion is not the same thing as say, racism.

Why is criticizing religion good, but criticizing any aspect of homosexuality automatically a "phobia" ?

Homosexuality is not an ideology or belief system.

It's use as a core identity category with specific ethical and social implications absolutely is.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Xing's post is good.

Religion should not be immune from criticism, and obviously if you express religious-based beliefs that homosexuality is bad, expect as sharp a rebuke on an LGBT-heavy forum as you would if your homophobia was secular-based.  This applies to any religion.  Disliking a religion is not the same thing as say, racism.

Why is criticizing religion good, but criticizing any aspect of homosexuality automatically a "phobia" ?

Homosexuality is not an ideology or belief system.

It's use as a core identity category with specific ethical and social implications absolutely is.

Would you say the same about race?

Yes, of course - to the extent that people believe that their race says something important about them, or what they should do, or be allowed to do.  And if no one ever did, then race would not have developed as a relevant social category.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Xing's post is good.

Religion should not be immune from criticism, and obviously if you express religious-based beliefs that homosexuality is bad, expect as sharp a rebuke on an LGBT-heavy forum as you would if your homophobia was secular-based.  This applies to any religion.  Disliking a religion is not the same thing as say, racism.

Why is criticizing religion good, but criticizing any aspect of homosexuality automatically a "phobia" ?

Homosexuality is not an ideology or belief system.

It's use as a core identity category with specific ethical and social implications absolutely is.

Would you say the same about race?

Yes, of course - to the extent that people believe that their race says something important about them, or what they should do, or be allowed to do.  And if no one ever did, then race would not have developed as a relevant social category.

So you think that criticizing someone for the political ideology they choose and criticizing someone for the sexuality they were born with is on the same morality level?

I don't know if criticizing people over politics vs. sexuality is the same morality, but I do think *concepts and actions* should be open to criticism in each case. 

It's also not clear at all that people are born with a sexual orientation in a way that isn't also the case for political orientation.  Studies in behavioral genetics give both similar heritability estimates - about 0.3 - meaning significant genetic influence, but quite a bit less than obesity or IQ (for example).  So if there's a difference in whether each should be subject to criticism, it needs to be for other reasons besides being "born with" one but not the other.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't have a problem with criticism of Evangelical beliefs, as long as it's criticism of things that Evangelicals actually believe and not a caricature of Evangelical Christianity.

This doesn't really happen here often, but I've gathered that some people at places like DU and some parts of Reddit basically believe that almost all or at least the majority of evangelicals believe in snake handling, prosperity theology, speaking in tongues, Calvinistic predestination and KJV-Onlyism, which is laughable because not only do the majority of evangelicals not believe in any of those, it'd be almost impossible to find one who believes in all.

All or most evangelicals believing in prosperity gospel is something that people say on here every now and then.   

See also the frequent "Evangelicals only support Israel because they want it to be destroyed so the End Times happens sooner" or related claims.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

How does any of that square with;

What if that highlighted part results in Religious Schools being mandated to hire openly gay teachers who reject Scriptural teachings on Marriage and Family?

You're not 'live and let live'. Except for your own views, because you believe your religious views require the greatest of protection. What's the point of the First Amendment if it gives religion carte blanche protection to do almost anything but doesn't afford this to other ideologies or inherent traits?

I missed something.  What other "ideologies" or "inherent traits" do I deny First Amendment protections to?

Furthermore, the First American protects freedom OF religion. The Establishment Clause is very clearly concerned with State control of religion ie. the Church of England or a Catholic  regime—very real concerns for 18th century descendants of European colonists.

It takes a very liberal reading of the First Amendment to think that it explicitly protects the lack of religious belief, especially compared to its explicit protections of religious faith, and such a reading is fine—assuming you’re a liberal…

Establishment clause protects lack of specific religious adherence, whether or not there is another religious adherence instead.

Free exercise applies to religious observance.